Essays on the American Revolution ed. by Stephen G. Kurtz, James E. Hutson, and: The Development of a Revolutionary Mentality (review)

474 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW nature ofresponsible government andthefunction andcomposition oftheupper house, wascrucial.Had theCanadian constitutional experience beenencapsulated in an elegantly writtenandauthoritative publication, the framersmighthavepaidit moreattentionandbeenless inclinedtoignoreit ontheassumption thatit gaveaway too much to the central government.As it was,James Bryce'sThe American Commonwealth was readilytohand.Coupled withthedraftconstitution setoutin t89o byAndrewInglisClark,theTasmanian attorney-general, whowasa close student and admirer of Americaninstitutions, it shapeda good deal of the specifics of Australian federaldocument. Finally,of thesome eightyparticipants whoattended themeetings andconventions, Professor LaNauzehastotreatabouttwentyinsome depth. Rarely does hesuccumb tosimple caricature, andthough hehas favourites, he doesn't letthisobscure histaskofdetermining whichmadethemoreablecontributiontothefinalproduct . Professor LaNauze has notavailed himself ofthepresently thshionable toolsand techniques of the historical method.Yet hisworkwill help prevent those whodofromignoring theimportance oftheunique andtheparticular in thehumanexperience. ROBERT V. KUBICEK University ofBritish Columbia UNITED STATES THE FOUNDING FATHERS VINDICATED; A REVIEW ESSAY Essays ontheAmerican Revolution. EditedbySTEPHEN G.KURTZ andJAMES H.HUTSON. ChapelHill andNew York,Published for theInstituteof EarlyAmericanHistory andCulture,Williamsburg, Virginia,bytheUniversity of NorthCarolinaPress and W.W. Norton, i973. Pp.xii, 3•,o.$t •,.5 o. TheDevelopment ofa Revolutionary Mentality. Libraryof Congress, Symposia onthe American Revolution, Washington, DC,•97•,.Pp.x, t57.$3.5o. Theseessays andcommentaries weredeliveredatsymposia heldattheInstitutefor EarlyAmericanHistoryatWilliamsburg andattheLibraryof Congress. They vary frombroadanalyses oftheorigins andconsequences oftheAmerican Revolution to limitedtreatments of specific aspects of therevolutionary era.The authorsfor the mostpart belongto a generationof historians trainedand maturedin the years following theSecond WorldWar.In contrast tothose oftheinterwargeneration who tendedto perceive therevolution in termsof whatisnowdenigrated assimplistic classconflictand narrow economicinterest,more than half of the scholars represented inthese volumes emphasize political or religious ideology, a returntothe motivation for therevolution professed bythefoundingfathersthemselves. It isappropriate thatthefirstessay in theWilliamsburg volumeisbyBernard Bailyn,theleading exponent oftheprimacy of radicalWhigideology. In contrast to scholars who believedthat socialand economicfactorswere uppermostand that REVIEWS 475 ideas wereused byadroitpoliticians simply toagitate public opinion, Bailynargues thatcertain concepts hadacompelling force,andthatthose views which shaped the revolutionary mindinAmerica derived fromtherhetoric andphilosophy stemming from opposition politics duringthe laterStuartandearlyGeorgianreigns.This reviewerfindshisargumentsomewhat contrivedandartificial,basedonamechanisticanalogy .' ...moralpassion' and'idealistic impulses... gripped theRevolutionaries' minds'and'ledthemto condemn ascorruptandoppressive thewholesystem by whichtheir worldwasgoverned'(p. 7). One hearsin thesewordsan echoof the undergraduate protests atHarvardandotherAmerican campuses inthe196os. But, strangely, theinitialoutburstof revolutionary spiritcouldnotbesustained, Bailyn speculates, and for the decadesfollowingthe revolutionthe essential themesof Americanhistorycouldno longerbe understood in ideological termsalone.The revolutionhadweakened a quasi-hierarchical society andwhileit hadnotbrought gross, immediate, or visible change, it hademphasized thestatus of theindividual ratherthanthecommunity, theintegrityof hisrightsratherthanthoseof thestate. The religious counterpart of thisinterpretation isofferedbyWilliamG. McLoughlin .Unfortunately, McLoughlin's useofreligionissotautological astoincludealmost anybeliefs. He relates theideology of therevolution, nottoopposition to governmentduringthe laterStuarts, but ratherto the GreatAwakening, the American revivalist movements duringthe 173os and •74os.The awakening wasthestarting pointoftherevolution; iterodedtheoldassumptions aboutsocial orderandauthorityanddissolved cultural cohesion. Underitsimpact, thecorporate andhierarchical idealbeganto yield to an individualistic and egalitarianone. But m•ch of what McLoughlinoffers is simplyingenuous conjecture,by its nature not subjectto verification. He extends concepts whichmayhavesomevaliditywhenappliedto individuals andtosocieties asawhole. Thushetells us:'Psychologically theAwakening maybe seenasthe traumaticconversion of a wholesociety from a burdenof frustration,guilt, and anxiety to a buoyantassertionof self-assurance, selfconfidence , and self-righteousness ...' (p.2oo).Somescholars mightquestion his undefined and,perhaps contradictory, assumption: thatthe prevalent religious commitment of the peoplewasevangelical Calvinism, that deistictheologywas generally accepted, andthatthethirteen colonies weregenerally pietistic. BothJackP.GreeneandEdmundS.Morganrejecttheviewthattherevolutionwas brought about essentially byotherthanpolitical factors. ForGreene itwas primarily a political crisis withintheempireratherthanasocial crisis withinAmerica, thoughhe doesnotaccount for theunevenresponse fromonecolony to anotherin reacting to the imperial programme.Greene downgrades the revolutionas the central phenomenon in Americandevelopment in theeighteenth century.He findsthatin everycolony authoritative groups ruled.Drawnfromtheuppereconomic andsocial levels, politically experienced andbroadly supported bythegeneral populace, they operatedwithina system elastic enoughto accommodate newelementsseeking power.Thismayhavebeenthecase inSouthCarolina, andperhaps inVirginia,but thisreviewerwonderstowhatextenttheywereaccommodated elsewhere. Whatled to thedisintegration of the imperialsystem, Greenereiterates, wasthe decision of Britishauthorities in thedecade following•748to bringthecolonies undermore 476 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW rigid control.In a cavalierfootnotehe tellsusthat thisconclusion isbased'upon extensive researchinto ... relevantprivateand publicrecords'on Britishcolonial policywhichheconducted 'in thesummerof •963andintermittentlythereafter'(p. 65).(Hopefullyit wasalongsummer.)The magnitude andnatureof thissupposed changein imperial policyand its consequence to the existingpowerstructurein provincialAmericacanonlybe fully demonstrated by an extensive, documented study.This Greenehasnotoffered.Further,it shouldbenotedthatatleasthalfof thepowersexercised bytheprovincialassemblies wereneverchallenged duringthe imperialcrises preceding therevolution, andoftheremainderwhichwereincontention , all but the exclusive right of taxationwasleft to the coloniallegislatures. We might alsoobserve that manyof the leadingprovincialpoliticians were perfectly willingtoparticipate intheAnglo-American system. The careers of Hutchinson, the Otises, theDelanceys, andtheLivingstons arecases in point. Edmund S. Morganconcludes with Professor Greenethat...